Kenya Insights

Tag: Kenya Human Rights Commission (KHRC)

  • Lobby Groups Blast Media Council Over ‘Bias’ in Case Against Journalists Investigating Safaricom-Abduction Links

    Lobby Groups Blast Media Council Over ‘Bias’ in Case Against Journalists Investigating Safaricom-Abduction Links

    A coalition of prominent Kenyan lobby groups has sharply criticized the Media Council of Kenya’s Complaints Commission for what they call a biased decision to entertain a “baseless” complaint lodged by telecommunications giant Safaricom PLC against Nation Media Group (NMG) and its journalists.

    The Kenya Human Rights Commission (KHRC), Katiba Institute, and Muslims for Human Rights (MUHURI) argue that the move threatens media freedom and shields Safaricom from accountability over its alleged role in facilitating human rights abuses.

    The controversy stems from an explosive investigative report published by NMG in October 2024, which revealed how Safaricom routinely provides security agencies with access to suspects’ personal data.

    The report suggested this practice may have enabled extrajudicial killings, enforced disappearances, and renditions—serious allegations that have rocked Kenya’s public discourse.

    Journalists Namir Shabibi and Claire Lauterbach spearheaded the investigation, with follow-up stories pursued by colleagues Daniel Ogetta, Kepha Muiruri, and Evans Jaola.

    Rather than addressing the allegations head-on, Safaricom has targeted the journalists and NMG with what the lobby groups describe as a Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation (SLAPP). On April 3, 2025, the Complaints Commission announced it had accepted Safaricom’s complaint and would launch a “full hearing into alleged unethical reporting.”

    Among the company’s claims is that NMG failed to seek its comment prior to publication—a charge the lobby groups dismiss as demonstrably false.

    They assert that the journalists sent Safaricom four detailed letters totaling 18 pages of allegations in the months before the story broke, and that the company’s evasive response was included in the final report.

    “We are deeply troubled by the Commission’s assertion that Safaricom’s claims ‘raised credible concerns,’” the groups said in a joint statement.

    “Safaricom’s actions are not in good faith, and its attempt to undermine the credibility of journalists who exposed its collaboration with security agencies must be seen for what it is—an effort to evade scrutiny.”

    The lobby groups accuse Safaricom of deploying SLAPP tactics to intimidate journalists and deter further reporting on its alleged complicity in human rights violations.

    They note that the company has yet to provide substantive evidence to support its complaint, suggesting the legal action is designed to exhaust the journalists through prolonged battles rather than address the core issues raised in the exposé.

    Most damningly, Safaricom has not denied key allegations, including claims that it may have obstructed justice by providing tampered or incomplete call data records in cases of enforced disappearance.

    The coalition also highlighted a related case in which Safaricom sued journalist Robert Wanjala Kituyi for simply requesting information about the number of court orders the company received from police between June and October 2024 seeking access to personal data.

    Katiba Institute is representing Kituyi in that lawsuit, which the groups cite as further evidence of Safaricom’s efforts to suppress public-interest journalism.

    “This is a clear pattern of intimidation,” the press release stated. “Safaricom is using its corporate might to silence those who dare to hold it accountable.”

    The lobby groups have called on the Complaints Commission to dismiss Safaricom’s complaint outright and resist pressure from the telecom giant.

    “The Commission must not allow powerful corporations to manipulate its processes to escape accountability,” they warned, urging the body to uphold media freedom and refer to NMG’s investigative report for clarity on the stakes involved.

    Safaricom’s actions, the groups argue, raise critical questions: Why is the company resorting to legal maneuvers rather than addressing the allegations? And what might it be trying to hide? For now, the coalition insists the answer lies in the Nation’s reporting—evidence they say the Commission cannot ignore.

    As the hearing looms, and with human rights and journalistic integrity on the line, all eyes are on the Media Council to see whether it will stand firm or bend to corporate influence.

  • Celebrated Carbon Trading Firm Wildlife Works In Kenya Under Probe For Multiple Gross Human Rights Violations

    Celebrated Carbon Trading Firm Wildlife Works In Kenya Under Probe For Multiple Gross Human Rights Violations

    In Kenya, a court has ordered the government to set up a Commission to carry out an investigation into how a ranching company called Kambanga Ranching acquired over 4000 acres of land belonging to the Wata community.

    Judge Stephen Murigi Kibunja issued the orders following a suit filed by Kambanga Ranching (DA) Co Ltd against 147 occupants named as respondents.

    The company took the villagers to court in efforts to secure an enforcement for the 147 villagers to be kicked out of their land.

    The investigation aims to shed light on the circumstances surrounding the acquisition of the land and determine whether any irregularities or violations occurred during the process. By issuing these orders, the court seeks to ensure transparency, fairness, and adherence to legal procedures in matters related to land ownership and utilization.

    This development underscores the importance of upholding the rights of local communities and ensuring proper scrutiny of land transactions, especially in cases involving sensitive issues such as carbon trading and indigenous land rights. It reflects the judiciary’s commitment to safeguarding the interests of all stakeholders and promoting accountability in land governance processes.

    Kambanga Ranch is part of Kasigau Corridor REDD project which was started by American/ Canadian Mike Korchinsky, founder of Wildlife Works Carbon which has over a million hectares of land under its belt in Kenya and DRC.

    Kasigau Corridor.

    The organization uses ranches like Kambanga as a front to secure more land in Kenya which it them uses to generate and sell Verra verified carbon credits. The carbon credits client list for Wildlife Works REDD Projects in Kenya and DRC includes the likes of Shell, Audi, Microsoft, Netflix etc.

    Human rights violations by Wildlife Works

    In November 2023, the Kenya Human Rights Commission (KHRC) and the Centre for Research on Multinational Corporations (SOMO) exposed serious allegations of sexual harassment and abuse at the Kasigau carbon offset project, run by Wildlife Works Carbon, in Kenya.

    The allegations of abuse dated back at least a decade and affected current and former employees of Wildlife Works and women living in the nearby communities. The company, which failed to identify this long-standing abuse, set up an investigation based on our reporting, and this led to the dismissal of one individual “for gross misconduct, including conduct in violation of the company’s policy against sexual harassment.”

    Wildlife Works also terminated its Human Resources manager because he “created a culture of fear and intimidation that, according to interviewed personnel, prevented reporting of sexual harassment incidents.”

    Wildlife Works subsequently alleged that SOMO had paid individuals to come forward with testimony. This is a baseless claim. Neither KHRC nor SOMO have ever paid people to provide information. Our organisations have a combined eighty-year record of ethical research and human rights activism.

    The carbon credits client list for Wildlife Works REDD Projects in Kenya and DRC.

    KHRC and SOMO are unable to disclose the names of those who provided testimony to us, as we guarantee the anonymity of individuals, which is of paramount importance in research involving survivors of sexual harassment and abuse.

    Protecting the victims’ identities is one of the reasons why KHRC and SOMO enjoy the trust of victims of corporate harm and abuse. When women and men come forward, they should be able to do so with their privacy and dignity protected. For this reason, we went to lengths to protect the women who came forward to tell their stories.

    It is clear that the company found that the allegations documented by KHRC and SOMO were manifestly correct. However, the company has not investigated all the information provided.

    Our research makes evident that allegations of sexual abuse were not confined to one perpetrator or one department. Our report and correspondence with Wildlife Works have been clear about the scope of the allegations we documented.

    The decision by Verra to temporarily suspend the Kasigau project appears to have created a situation where communities believe that reports of abuse can lead to a loss of (potential) benefits.

    This is consistent with the testimony given to us by an auditor of Kasigau (cited in our report) who told us that “local communities who benefit from project carbon revenues are less likely to share such issues, as doing so may risk the continuation of project benefits”.

    The risk is that people are left with a choice to either live with abuse or lose benefits.

    Meanwhile, at Kasigau, we understand that individuals who asked for anonymity and got it from KHRC and SOMO are being identified. This deepens our concern that a culture is emerging whereby those who suffer abuse may hear the message – do not expose abuse because the whole community may lose their benefits.

    This case exposes the insidious core of the carbon offsetting industry: reporting abuse can threaten the profits of the carbon offset business. No community anywhere should have to choose between reporting abuse or losing benefits. Communities at Kasigau should not lose benefits due to a corporate failure to identify and prevent sexual harassment and abuse. Nor should any woman ever have to face the choice of silent acceptance of sexual harassment and abuse to preserve wider community benefits from a company.